Wow, this is a shocking turn, I figured that they "loved" the NBA so much they wouldnt let them leave Seattle. Seattle didnt want to pay a dime for the NBA then whine and ***** when an owner wants to leave.

CompACE

07-02-2008, 08:29 PM

Well... at least it's settled i guess. This story had "leaving in Mayflower trucks at midnight" written all over it before this.

Hicks

07-02-2008, 08:44 PM

Wow. I didn't realize they'd be in Oklahoma City NEXT YEAR (2008-2009)!

So sudden!

As for them not wanting to pay, isn't it true that they'd already, recently, paid for a new football stadium, a new baseball stadium, and not too long ago a renovation of the Sonic's stadium? They have been paying a LOT of money lately if that's all true, or even just some of it.

Putnam

07-02-2008, 08:46 PM

This story had "leaving in Mayflower trucks at midnight" written all over it before this.

Not that there's anything wrong with that!

rexnom

07-02-2008, 08:59 PM

So sad. What a great sports town and city in general. I feel for ya, Seattle.

Doddage

07-02-2008, 09:01 PM

Nice. So Seattle loses out on Durant, Green, and Westbrook.

Raoul Duke

07-02-2008, 09:03 PM

Nice. So Seattle loses out on Durant, Green, and Westbrook.

AND DJ White!

BoomBaby31

07-02-2008, 09:25 PM

That is crazy they are leaving but what is more shocking they will be playing there next year. I guess they didn't want the whole drop of attendance in Sonics because of the bitterness in leaving. You know, like in franchise mode of Madden? You move your team the -transfer year-and no matter what the attendance is super low lol...

duke dynamite

07-02-2008, 09:39 PM

Poop.

Trader Joe

07-02-2008, 09:50 PM

RIP Seattle SuperSonics. Tough to see a former NBA champion franchise go down like this.

rock747

07-02-2008, 09:54 PM

So who do Seattle fans root for? It's kinda scary to think that a team can dissapear so quickly.

Shade

07-02-2008, 09:56 PM

Whoa, the Seattle Sonics are already done? Was this always the plan? I thought they had one more year.

That really blows that Seattle fans didn't even get a proper send-off. I really feel for them right now.

Trader Joe

07-02-2008, 10:02 PM

So who do Seattle fans root for? It's kinda scary to think that a team can dissapear so quickly.

Tough for them. The Sonics are literally dead for right now. Probably just have to wait it out until the Grizzlies eventually move from Memphis.

aceace

07-02-2008, 10:08 PM

There are cities with officials that have the leadership qualities of gerbils. Fortunately Indianapolis is not one of them (some of you that live there may disagree) they have got the Colts and Pacers locked in for a very long time.

I have no idea how Los Angeles has went so long without an NFL team. I expect the Saints to move there in a couple years if things don't get better in the "Big Easy"

Kuq_e_Zi91

07-02-2008, 10:30 PM

The Saints? Why would they move them after such an amazing revival. That would be worse than moving the Sonics. If an NFL team is gonna move to LA, it's probably the Bills.

Haggard

07-02-2008, 10:34 PM

Although its sad for Seattle losing their nba team, i think its good for the franchise. I am also impressed that this was sorted out quickly and professionally and it didn't really turn into a dogfight...

I wonder how the Hornets feel about the sonics cutting in on their second home.

MyFavMartin

07-02-2008, 10:42 PM

Think Seattle will retain the Sonics name?

Who do you think moves next?

Which team and to what city?

Trader Joe

07-02-2008, 10:44 PM

Think Seattle will retain the Sonics name?

Who do you think moves next?

Which team and to what city?

1.) Did you read the article?

2.) New Jersey to Brooklyn

Pig Nash

07-02-2008, 10:45 PM

Hopefully memphis moves to seattle and become the new "sonics" a la the cleveland browns.

OK City something other than sonics please.

MyFavMartin

07-02-2008, 10:48 PM

1.) Did you read the article?

2.) New Jersey to Brooklyn

1. No, I had read about a year ago that Seattle was retaining the rights, but not sure if that was finalized.

2. Already knew that. Was trying to generate some discussion on what teams might move or what cities might gain expansion teams...

Trader Joe

07-02-2008, 10:50 PM

Well, I gotta figure the Grizz are the next team to move. Makes sense too from a logistics stand point. Seattle moves to OKC and joins the southwest, and the Grizz move to Seattle and fill out the northwest.

Hicks

07-02-2008, 10:53 PM

The Oklahoma City Bison?

grace

07-02-2008, 10:56 PM

I happened to watch Seattle's final game of last season. It was pretty obvious that the players and the fans knew the team was leaving.

Anthem

07-02-2008, 10:57 PM

There are cities with officials that have the leadership qualities of gerbils.
Because they didn't cave to the Sonic's demands?

317Kim

07-02-2008, 11:05 PM

This seems so soon. It'll be different with the lack of alliteration with the Seattle Supersonics.

MyFavMartin

07-02-2008, 11:31 PM

The Oklahoma City Bison?

Hope they don't have brown unis, which would look like a certain disturbing Christmas character from South Park.

MyFavMartin

07-02-2008, 11:33 PM

Well, I gotta figure the Grizz are the next team to move. Makes sense too from a logistics stand point. Seattle moves to OKC and joins the southwest, and the Grizz move to Seattle and fill out the northwest.

I think the Grizz have made some good moves with Gay, Mayo, Conley and Gasol . This team will be good in the next few years.

Would hate to see them leave Memphis only when they are about to get better, but their loss, Seattle's gain.

Roaming Gnome

07-02-2008, 11:46 PM

Unfortunatly, this is the reason why cities pay for these expensive pleasure palaces. If you don't, someone else will be glad to do it! I can think of better ways of spending $3/4 of a billion dollars besides putting a new stadium in downtown Indy, but as I mentioned...If we didn't, I'm sure someone in Los Angeles would have finally worked something out.

Wow. I didn't realize they'd be in Oklahoma City NEXT YEAR (2008-2009)!

So sudden!

As for them not wanting to pay, isn't it true that they'd already, recently, paid for a new football stadium, a new baseball stadium, and not too long ago a renovation of the Sonic's stadium? They have been paying a LOT of money lately if that's all true, or even just some of it.

Yep, it's all true. The Key Arena was built (rebuilt) in 1995. Safeco Field and Qwest Stadium were finished earlier in this decade.

I personally believe the race is between Memphis and New Orleans for who gets to slide into the Pacific Northwest. Eventhough the Hornets did well this year, the real question is... Can New Orleans still support that franchise? I know George Shinn lobbied the NBA very hard to stay in OKC, but was told that the leagues owners didn't want the bad PR of turning their backs on New Orleans eventhough that franchise had troubles well before Katrina was a thought.

Memphis is in a tough spot....They built a brand new arena, but unless the Tigers (U. of Memphis) are playing... No one cares. The new arena built with public money is the only reason I see Memphis sticking around for now. The building is not a problem in New Orleans considering that it was built well before the NBA arrived.

ChicagoPacer

07-02-2008, 11:49 PM

This was a foregone conclusion months ago. To summarize the chain of events for those who haven't been reading about it:

Step 1: buy franchise and say you want them in Seattle
Step 2: get rid of your valuable on-court assets and go cheap, making the product on the court unwatchable
Step 3: make entirely unrealistic arena demands on the back of Seattle paying big $$$ for new facilities for the Seahawks and Mariners
Step 4: watch citizens recoil at the thought of another bond issuance to float said arena plan. Destroying the roster and going cheap didn't exactly help fan sentiment.
Step 5: pooh pooh the city's proposal of significant renovations to Key rather than a new arena
Step 6: text message your fellow investors about pulling out of town before "another lame duck season" while you are still supposedly acting in good faith to keep the team in town.
Step 7: have Stern defend you after the media finds out about your admission via text that your're looking to move in the middle of negotations and others saying your intentions were always to move the team to your home town.
Step 8: rubber stamp your plans to move to OKC with approval from Stern and Board of Governors. The BOG is comprised of owners who wish to retain the right to move their franchises as this increases their future flexibility and franchise value. Coincidentally, the Simons approved the move.

That about sums it up. This looks absolutely sinister compared to the move the late Mr. R. Irsay pulled.

CompACE

07-03-2008, 12:07 AM

Initially I figured Seattle would just get a replacement team in 2 to 3 years, but then I remembered that the league already had an even 30 teams. Sucks for Seattle :(

Roaming Gnome

07-03-2008, 12:12 AM

This was a foregone conclusion months ago. To summarize the chain of events for those who haven't been reading about it:

Step 1: buy franchise and say you want them in Seattle
Step 2: get rid of your valuable on-court assets and go cheap, making the product on the court unwatchable
Step 3: make entirely unrealistic arena demands on the back of Seattle paying big $$$ for new facilities for the Seahawks and Mariners
Step 4: watch citizens recoil at the thought of another bond issuance to float said arena plan. Destroying the roster and going cheap didn't exactly help fan sentiment.
Step 5: pooh pooh the city's proposal of significant renovations to Key rather than a new arena
Step 6: text message your fellow investors about pulling out of town before "another lame duck season" while you are still supposedly acting in good faith to keep the team in town.
Step 7: have Stern defend you after the media finds out about your admission via text that your're looking to move in the middle of negotations and others saying your intentions were always to move the team to your home town.
Step 8: rubber stamp your plans to move to OKC with approval from Stern and Board of Governors. The BOG is comprised of owners who wish to retain the right to move their franchises as this increases their future flexibility and franchise value. Coincidentally, the Simons approved the move.

That about sums it up. This looks absolutely sinister compared to the move the late Mr. R. Irsay pulled.

A lot of people don't reallize that when R. Irsay moved the Colts in the middle of the night, a proposal for Emminent Domain of the Colts was sitting on the Gov. of Maryland's desk. If that would have been signed before Irsay got out of Baltimore, any move would have been mired in litigation for months and possibly years.

In the end, the State of Maryland forced his hand with a "power play" and it didn't work out in their favor. So the rest of the world can look at Irsay's midnight Mayflower move as pure evil, but really... What choice did he have?

duke dynamite

07-03-2008, 01:04 AM

So apparently there are many goat farms in Oklahoma. I took it upon myself to name the team and create it's logo...

http://i29.photobucket.com/albums/c276/tlaurenzana/goats.jpg

ChicagoPacer

07-03-2008, 01:38 AM

A lot of people don't reallize that when R. Irsay moved the Colts in the middle of the night, a proposal for Emminent Domain of the Colts was sitting on the Gov. of Maryland's desk. If that would have been signed before Irsay got out of Baltimore, any move would have been mired in litigation for months and possibly years.

In the end, the State of Maryland forced his hand with a "power play" and it didn't work out in their favor. So the rest of the world can look at Irsay's midnight Mayflower move as pure evil, but really... What choice did he have?

I agree with this. The biggest difference between the Colts move and the Sonics move for me, however, was that Rosenbloom fought the good fight for several years in Baltimore before swapping franchises, and Irsay operated the Colts in Baltimore for 12 years before his hand was eventually forced. People can criticize him for mismanagement, but any objective person can't criticize the move.

Sports teams are cultural institutions, and owners buying one need to make a good faith effort to keep the culture and continuity of the franchise, which I think Irsay did. The team will be there (hopefully) long after the owner is gone, so they need to be caretakers as much as owners. Moving a franchise immediately is kind of like buying the Sistene Chapel with the thought of converting it into a pool hall immediately. Make an honest go of it first as a chapel before you decide paint over the ceiling and put in track lighting.

rock747

07-03-2008, 02:12 AM

If I remember correctly the Sonics keep all previous records along with the name right? So the next team that comes in will just start off from the end of this season with the records? This is unlike the Colts who still have records from the team in Baltimore.

NorCal_Pacerfan

07-03-2008, 03:06 AM

I'm glad that Seattle keeps the name and colors. I imagine at some point there will defo be a Sonics V2.

Oklahoma Homies ;)

JayRedd

07-03-2008, 06:21 AM

Oklahoma Surreys With The Fringe on Top?

Why not? This whole ordeal is a fringin joke.

dewman_32

07-03-2008, 06:28 AM

1. No, I had read about a year ago that Seattle was retaining the rights, but not sure if that was finalized.

2. Already knew that. Was trying to generate some discussion on what teams might move or what cities might gain expansion teams...
It seems pretty clear that Stern wants a team in Vegas. While I disagree with Vegas being a viable option, if Stern wants it bad enough, he'll get it done. As far as cities landing an NBA team, Kansas City and St. Louis are leading candidates. KC just built the new Sprint Center by the same guys that designed Conseco. I've been to it and it is really cool. Check it out here - http://sprintcenter.com/default.asp?id=161. They held the Big 12 Championship there this past spring and it was impressive. The only problem with KC is that an NBA team didn't last when they had them (the Kings), however that was pre-Bird and Magic. KC is about the same size as Indy as far as market size, but they already have two pro teams. The Chiefs regularly sell out, but the Royals attendance is dismal. I'd lean towards St. Louis over KC, but both are the two leading candidates IMO.

JayRedd

07-03-2008, 06:35 AM

Stern has been adamant that if Vegas wants a team, they have to take remove the NBA from every sports book in town. With the money at stake, the city won't agree to that. Although, Stern's position doesn't necessarily matter since relocation is a Board of Governors decision and not his...And he's said that if the BOG voted to have allow a team to Vegas even with the gambling still going on, he couldn't/wouldn't do anything about it.

There was a lot of press on this issue last year during All Star Weekend. Here's one that sums up Stern's position.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/allstar2007/news/story?id=2765906

BillS

07-03-2008, 09:04 AM

As far as cities landing an NBA team, Kansas City and St. Louis are leading candidates.

Slightly off topic, but if St. Louis gets a team are the former ABA teams off the hook in regards to the Spirits payments?

count55

07-03-2008, 09:25 AM

Slightly off topic, but if St. Louis gets a team are the former ABA teams off the hook in regards to the Spirits payments?

Nope, the deal is "in perpetuity", regardless of what happens in St. Louis.

Ozzie and Dan Silna are my heroes. (Not as a Pacer fan, just as someone who hopes someday to be paid ridiculous amounts of money for doing absolutely nothing.)

Trader Joe

07-03-2008, 09:31 AM

Its the greatest business deal ever made.

2minutes twowa

07-03-2008, 09:38 AM

I don't blame Seattle for making a decision that a new arena wasn't in their cities best financial interest. What I don't understand, is that it sounds like they're going to try and renovate Key Arena so they can get another NBA team in the future. This is Charlotte all over again. The city says, "We can't possibly build a new arena." So the owner moves the team, then the city builds a new arena. Why don't they agree to build a new arena within an alotted amount of time so the original team doesn't have to move? It wasn't a huge deal for Charlotte, but for a team with such history in a great US city like Seattle, it's awful!

I also have to partially blame the financial problems of the Hornets and Griz on David Stern. Memphis and New Orleans were never good options for NBA teams.(Even before hurrican katrina) There are 3 main criteria that is looked at when a city is bidding for an NBA franchise: Facility, median income, corporate presence. Both cities had facility plans in place, but IMO didn't have the median household income or corporate presence needed. I'm sure politics were also involved.

BlueNGold

07-03-2008, 10:20 AM

It seems pretty clear that Stern wants a team in Vegas. While I disagree with Vegas being a viable option, if Stern wants it bad enough, he'll get it done. As far as cities landing an NBA team, Kansas City and St. Louis are leading candidates. KC just built the new Sprint Center by the same guys that designed Conseco. I've been to it and it is really cool. Check it out here - http://sprintcenter.com/default.asp?id=161. They held the Big 12 Championship there this past spring and it was impressive. The only problem with KC is that an NBA team didn't last when they had them (the Kings), however that was pre-Bird and Magic. KC is about the same size as Indy as far as market size, but they already have two pro teams. The Chiefs regularly sell out, but the Royals attendance is dismal. I'd lean towards St. Louis over KC, but both are the two leading candidates IMO.

Good for Seattle. In 20 years, Vegas will have a franchise once enough other cities decide to stop funding private enterprise. Eventually, just like the horses, the NBA will break down and allow new stadiums to include casinos because it's so profitable. Only a matter of time.

count55

07-03-2008, 10:32 AM

Its the greatest business deal ever made.

According to estimates, by the end of the current TV contract, the Silna brothers will have recieved over $280 million in revenue from this deal.

As a side note, the NBA almost got the Silna's to agree to a buyout of the deal in 1982, but the talks broke down when the Silna's were insisting on $8 million, but the NBA didn't want to pay more than $5 million.

All Hail Dan & Ozzie!

Naptown_Seth

07-03-2008, 10:37 AM

Whoa, the Seattle Sonics are already done? Was this always the plan? I thought they had one more year.

That really blows that Seattle fans didn't even get a proper send-off. I really feel for them right now.
I always thought that was the plan on hand. At least the non-ruling (it was a settlement instead) doesn't set a precedent for teams to break their leases.

Seattle put PLENTY into the Sonics just 10 years ago, and since then spent tons on two massive and impressive baseball and football stadiums. Key Arena was a cool looking place in a cool location (right next to the Needle and the World's Fair park). You could take the monorail over from downtown even. There is a beautiful, huge fountain thing right outside that kids can play in during the summer.

They might not have the lux box situation they'd like, but the place DESTROYS what MSA or the old Charlotte arena were, and those aren't that long removed.

This has Pacers move written all over it, say circa 2015. It would be exactly the same and we'd be saying "The Fieldhouse isn't that old".

Naptown_Seth

07-03-2008, 10:45 AM

but was told that the leagues owners didn't want the bad PR of turning their backs on New Orleans eventhough that franchise had troubles well before Katrina was a thought.
I think without a doubt Katrina cost Seattle it's team. Seriously.

Remember the rumor on the Peja deal was that the Pacers were cut a "favor" to get that TE in exchange for a more favorable vote from the Simons on the relocation committee.

Shinn is a champ a-hole as we've discussed here previously. The second he thinks he can get out of NO if they don't support the team he will, and as Gnome said it was going poorly prior to Katrina.

Naptown_Seth

07-03-2008, 11:02 AM

According to estimates, by the end of the current TV contract, the Silna brothers will have recieved over $280 million in revenue from this deal.

As a side note, the NBA almost got the Silna's to agree to a buyout of the deal in 1982, but the talks broke down when the Silna's were insisting on $8 million, but the NBA didn't want to pay more than $5 million.

All Hail Dan & Ozzie!
Take $8m, invest it in something earning 15% every year and you end up at the same amount. Take $5m and earn 17% instead. Good freaking luck on that.

Now to be fair, let's say the NBA stuck that $8m in a decent 8% earner in the meantime (which they didn't). They might have grown it to $60m. So yeah, unless that money was the key to the NBA taking off (as in paying it to CBS for a better TV deal payoff) it was a pretty terrible choice, to the tune of at least $200m in lost income in 25 years.

Then again the lost almost that much investing in guys like Big Dog and Marbury. ;) :-p

count55

07-03-2008, 11:16 AM

Take $8m, invest it in something earning 15% every year and you end up at the same amount. Take $5m and earn 17% instead. Good freaking luck on that.

Now to be fair, let's say the NBA stuck that $8m in a decent 8% earner in the meantime (which they didn't). They might have grown it to $60m. So yeah, unless that money was the key to the NBA taking off (as in paying it to CBS for a better TV deal payoff) it was a pretty terrible choice, to the tune of at least $200m in lost income in 25 years.

Then again the lost almost that much investing in guys like Big Dog and Marbury. ;) :-p

To be absolutely fair, you have to remember the state of the NBA in 1982. CBS was still playing the weeknight games on tape delay after the 11:00 news, Bird & Magic were just catching on, and Michael hadn't even made his debut. As much of an image problem as the NBA has now, it's nothing compared to then, when they were pretty much a non-entity.

mildlysane

07-03-2008, 11:29 AM

Oklahoma Okies (from Muskogee)

ChicagoPacer

07-03-2008, 12:53 PM

Take $8m, invest it in something earning 15% every year and you end up at the same amount. Take $5m and earn 17% instead. Good freaking luck on that.

17% returns over 25 years would be almost impossible, but even 15% returns over the same period would be unlikely. 15% still beats the market about 3-3.5% a year over the same period--maybe a 1 in 20 shot. Stupid deal all around for the league.

count55

07-03-2008, 01:16 PM

17% returns over 25 years would be almost impossible, but even 15% returns over the same period would be unlikely. 15% still beats the market about 3-3.5% a year over the same period--maybe a 1 in 20 shot. Stupid deal all around for the league.

I can't find the annual rate of return on the stock market for 1982-2008 and don't feel like calculating it, but for 1982-2002 it was 13% (http://http://www.vanguard.com/bogle_site/sp20021031.html), and this was with the DJIA at around 8,000 due to the post 9/11 bear market. Today, the market is somewhere over 11,000.

Obviously portfolios vary, but these numbers would seem to indicate that 15% isn't all that outlandish.